@Hyolobrika
Centralised body can hinder peer-to-peer network from functioning, just as it can do with anarchy. Not every p2p network threatens centralised authority that is why no action it taken against most of them, anarchy on the other hand…
>centralised body can hinder P2P network from functioning
How so? BitTorrent and cryptocurrencies are still around despite governments.
@Hyolobrika
I think it's actually the opposite — the governments demonstrated the ability to regulate both quite well: in many countries using Bittorrent has been pushed into grey area, most prefer to use VPN or rent offshore seedboxes to not do that on their own machine over direct Internet connection and individuals aren't who they are really cracking down on, a lot of popular torrent sites have been eventually shut down, most recent being RARBG.
@Hyolobrika
Same with cryptocurrencies — they mostly don't care when it's individuals paying for domain names and even weed with Bitcoin, but when it came to large money-laundering operations European governments have demonstrated that they can shut those down with ease — and it's not really that hard since cryptocurrencies are only used as an intermediate for transfers, but final destination is still converting it to fiat currencies — and they can of course control that.
@Hyolobrika @m0xee most p2p protocols still have single points of failure (trackers, bootstrap nodes, dev teams). And all digital protocols rely on centralized physical infra